Content on this page requires a newer version of Adobe Flash Player.

Get Adobe Flash player

 
Rumi - Quotes
 
“Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.”
― Rumi

  
“Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll meet you there.

When the soul lies down in that grass the world is too full to talk about.”
― Rumi

 
“If you are irritated by every rub, how will your mirror be polished?”
― Rumi

 
“The minute I heard my first love story, I started looking for you, not knowing how blind that was.
Lovers don't finally meet somewhere. They're in each other all along.”
― Rumi

 
“What you seek is seeking you.”
― Rumi

 
“The wound is the place where the Light enters you.”
― Rumi

 
“Sell your cleverness and buy bewilderment.”
― Rumi

 
“You were born with wings, why prefer to crawl through life?”
― Rumi

 
“Don’t grieve. Anything you lose comes round in another form.”
― Rumi

 
“Dance, when you're broken open. Dance, if you've torn the bandage off. Dance in the middle of the fighting. Dance in your blood. Dance when you're perfectly free.”
― Rumi

 
“When I am with you, we stay up all night.
When you're not here, I can't go to sleep.
Praise God for those two insomnias!
And the difference between them.”
― Rumi

 
“When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy.”
― Rumi

 
“Ignore those that make you fearful and sad, that degrade you back towards disease and death.”
― Rumi
 
“Knock, And He'll open the door
Vanish, And He'll make you shine like the sun
Fall, And He'll raise you to the heavens
Become nothing, And He'll turn you into everything.”
― Rumi

 
“Forget safety.
Live where you fear to live. Destroy your
reputation. Be notorious.”
― Rumi

 
“My soul is from elsewhere, I'm sure of that, and I intend to end up there.”
― Rumi

 
“In your light I learn how to love. In your beauty, how to make poems. You dance inside my chest where no-one sees you, but sometimes I do, and that sight becomes this art.”
― Rumi
 
    

print this article Add this page to your favorite Social websites
Share |

Anglo-Americans can no longer have their cake and eat it too
 
The United States cannot lead from behind, compromise on principles, betray allies and still maintain her Superpower status and credibility

By Freydoon Khoie

Some of the American allies in West Asia and North Africa are concerned and reflect disappointment that President Obama decided not to attack Syria to remove Assad’s murderous regime and support pro-democracy Syrians to form a new, secular and democratic state and follow up by openly supporting pro-democracy forces in Iran and help them to bring down Khamnei’s much despised terrorist and oppressive regime.

Although such scenarios were on the table under President Bush’s administration, change of policy by President Obama have raised concerns on more grounded reasons, stemming from various Obama administration policies that certain regional allies as well as Iran’s pro-democracy opposition parties are finding disconcerting, debatable, or downright incomprehensible. These include hastily withdrawing from Iraq which opened the door for Khamnei’s terrorist regime death squads to move into Iraq, undermining Iraq’s democratizing and liberating process for which thousands of Americans and British servicemen and service women gave their lives for and the American tax payers paid the astronomical amount of three trillion dollars for liberating Iraq from a mad man like Saddam Hussein.     

Such policies cost Americans loss of reputation as a benevolent force and deeply tarnishes allies’ confidence and as though that was not enough, now President Obama is contemplating troop withdrawal from Afghanistan which would unleash the Khamnei’s terrorist squads and their allies like Al Qaida to spread their wings of savagery over Afghanistan and destabilize the fragile democratic institutions built there at such high cost of American and British blood and tax payers billions along with the loss of scores of innocent civilian Afghan lives. These policies in addition to openly leading from behind on Libya, rooting for the ouster of a thirty-year friendly ruler in Egypt, and backing down at the last minute from bombing Syria to remove a downright murderer from power, all against a backdrop of frequently vacillating rhetoric and shifting positions in Washington has created a serious credibility gap. In the words of Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, “Faced with this barrage of indecision and seeming antipathy about how to confront certain regional threats”, -- West Asian and North African allies and Iran’s pro-democracy leaders whose decision to partner with Washington is an existential one -- are increasingly questioning whether America is serious about running an international security system from which it benefits and by which they literally survive.

Most of the legitimate, pro-democracy and popular political leaders in Iran are either killed, imprisoned or forced into exile. The records of Human Rights violations by the Khamnei’s regime is now at par with Hitler’s, Idi Amin’s and North Korea’s Jung ill, yet, not a single word is mentioned in the recent White House Fact Sheet pointing out to the conditions for easing sanctions! What on earth is going on? What kind of a people the Anglo Americans think we are? Don’t they think that if the twenty five million angry young Iranians lose hope in a peaceful change then they will feel that they have no other alternative but to pick up guns and resort to violence to free themselves from Khamnei’s monstrous tyranny and oppression and this will lead not only Iran into a civil war but throw the whole region into another cycle of instability? Don’t they realize that the vast majority of the people of Iran are no longer willing to tolerate an ‘Islamist’ terrorist regime and that they want a pro-western, secular political system in peace with the United States and all our neighboring countries to build a new, modern and a free Iran? So why the 5+1 is not openly and honestly refer to these facts in their communiqué?

Once this type of questioning begins, the trust that is essential to any close relationship is replaced by suspicion. Once-cooperative allies begin to adopt a "nose of the camel" mindset in which even the most limited and understandable compromises with foes are viewed as a slippery slope to complete capitulation. This seems to be what is happening with the current ‘Iran deal’. Ignoring the specifics of the accord, Iran’s pro-democracy millions and regional allies perceive it as further "proof" that the President Obama is not on their side. In our view, if we do not criticize the White House for taking this initial and relatively minor step, the administration will be encouraged to take further and much more damaging steps on the road to alleged appeasement with a universally acknowledged terrorist, tyrannical, and oppressive regime in Iran.

Of course, we do understand that Washington cannot run a global security system without making tactical agreements with rogue and pariah states like Khamnei’s regime, at times nourished with compromises -- the U.S. democratic system demands it, particularly at a time when numerous polls show that almost half of American voters oppose new military actions in the region, including in Iran and Syria, while more than half support military action against the Khamnei’s regime in Iran to help the pro-democracy forces to establish a secular and liberal democratic political system in Iran and end terrorism in the region and much of the world. But such agreements and their attendant compromises are only acceptable to regional partners if Washington simultaneously demonstrates resolve, toughness, and, if necessary, a willingness to fight.

Ambassador James F. Jeffrey correctly adds that ‘Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger knew this when they made extensive, historic pacts with China, North Vietnam, and the USSR. Although many allies were disconcerted at the time, they did not cry out publicly or hamstring U.S. diplomacy. Why? Because from the skies above Hanoi, to an island off Cambodia, to the sands of the Sinai, they saw proof after proof of American readiness to stand by allies, threaten and punish enemies, and throw Americans into combat’.

Iran’s pro-democracy leaders and allies in the Middle East do not see that proof today. One could say, "Well, America is a democracy, and many Americans don't want to do that these days." That is true, of course, but another truth is that Americans almost never really want to go to war, whether "these days" or in the past. Therefore, presidential leadership is needed to persuade American or British citizens that tough measures, even military steps, are sometimes necessary to remove rogue states, terrorist regimes like Khamnei’s in Iran and Assad’s in Syria, and maintain the global security system they benefit from, and to convince allies that Washington means what it says. This is not happening today, I am sad to say.

A fix is feasible, but it has to involve more than talk. President Obama has used clear and tough language of late, from the four Middle Eastern strategic priorities he laid out in his September 24 UN speech and to his remark that America has been the enforcing "anchor" of global security for many decades in his September 10 Syria speech. The administration could back up this talk with concrete actions and measures such as:

  • Finding ways to save defense dollars other than high-visibility naval reductions in the Middle East
  • Finding ways to openly support pro-democracy movement in Iran and pursue regime change to put an end to the fiasco created by the radical mullahs and disguised leftists, whom are strangulating the friendly nation of Iran and destabilizing the whole region and openly help Iranians to free themselves and becoming the strong American ally they were before 1979 catastrophe. People of Iran in general and the 25 million young Iranians in particular are certainly ready for that.
  • Finding ways to get military equipment flowing to Egypt, an ally that Washington needs badly and openly support the benevolent and nationalist military leaders to uproot Muslim Brotherhood radicals and political Islam once and for all and promote secular political system in Egypt like Turkey which is the demand of the vast majority of the people in Egypt and the entire West Asia and North Africa.
  • Expediting the slow bureaucratic processes that can impede weapons sales and on-the-ground counterterrorism assistance to key regional partners to bring an end to all radical Islamists terrorist organizations and truly liberate the nations of West Asia and North Africa.
  • Engaging president Karzai personally and intensively in reaching a troop presence agreement with Afghanistan and determine to stay in Afghanistan as long as necessary and even re-deploy American and British troops to Iraq to build confidence with the people of Iraq that US is not forsaking them and leaving them at the mercy of Iran’s Hezbollah terrorists, Sunnis and Kurdish war lords and allow them to destroy their country and their hope for an inclusive democracy, and by doing so, bring back confidence to the people of Iraq that the United States and Britain are truly a benevolent force and are not there only because of oil and this will also build confidence with Turkey and reversing its decision to purchase Chinese air-defense systems.
  • Increasing highest-level exchanges with the Iranian pro-democracy opposition leaders in exile and encourage and support them to mobilize nationwide strikes in conjunction with the US, EU and UN sanctions to bring down the regime and liberate Iran from mullah’s tyranny and oppression which will boost confidence with important regional allies.
  • Finding a credible and effective means of pressuring both Russia and China to stop supporting terrorist regimes in Iran and Syria and enlist Russia’s and China’s support for regime change in Iran and Syria.

Above all, the next time a crisis looms, the administration should not give the impression that job one is avoiding any military response, however limited, justified, and minimally risky. The status of any superpower comes with certain moral and professional responsibilities and obligations which neglecting them will result in loss of long term credibility that are far more costly than the small savings made through short sighted policies of appeasement.

comments powered by Disqus

     
 
Home   |   About Khoie   |   Books   |   Articles & Essays
2014 © mrkhoie.com, All rights reserved. International copyright laws apply to all content